Hi everyone, I present the transparent decorated JavaFx stage (with some tinkering, of course): [image: image.png]
(I'm unsure if the list supports images, but there's a pink translucent decorated JavaFX Stage) I had deleted my original comment, thinking it wouldn't gain any interest, but I'm glad it did. I like this line of thought, as it allows more customization, as Michael pointed out, and prevents us from ending up with combinations of properties on the StageStyle enum. -- Thiago Em ter., 8 de abr. de 2025 às 18:11, Michael Strauß <michaelstr...@gmail.com> escreveu: > Thiago suggested in a comment on PR 1605 [0] that the proposed > EXTENDED and EXTENDED_UTILITY stage styles might not be needed, and > that the "extended client area" attribute might be a toggle that is > independent of the stage style. This would allow users to, for > example, combine an extended client area with a transparent window. > > While I think that the EXTENDED style is semantically quite different > from all the other stage styles, and as such should be its own stage > style, the idea has some merit. > > But instead of making "extended-ness" an independent attribute, we > should look at the TRANSPARENT and UTILITY styles. The argument for > those two being separate stage styles is a lot less convincing. Both > of these could easily be independent attributes: > Stage.initTransparency(boolean) and Stage.initUtility(boolean). > > The existing TRANSPARENT style would then be equivalent to the > UNDECORATED style with the initTransparency(true) attribute, while the > existing UTILITY style would be equivalent to the DECORATED style with > the initUtility(true) attribute. > > As for PR 1605, this would also eliminate the EXTENDED_UTILITY style. > That would leave us with only three main stage styles [2]: DECORATED, > UNDECORATED, EXTENDED. We would deprecate all other styles (but > probably not for removal). > > Having these two attributes as independent toggles would enable more > customization, and it would also solve another enhancement request > that asks for a utility-style undecorated transparent window [1]. > > What do you think of this idea? > > [0] https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1605 > [1] https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8091566 > [2] not counting UNIFIED, which seems to be of questionable use >
